When is a thing sacred? Why is a thing sacred? In every human society, primitive or advanced, there are some things or beliefs which it regards as sacred, and the rest [it regards] as profane. When a thing or belief has reached the stage of being sacred (pavitra), it means that it cannot be violated. Indeed it cannot be touched. It is taboo. Contrary to this, a thing or a belief which is profane (apavitra), i.e., outside the field of the sacred, may be violated. It means one can act contrary to it, without feeling any fear or qualms of conscience. The sacred is something holy. To transgress it is a sacrilege. Why a thing is made sacred? To confine the scope of the question to the matter in hand, why morality should [=should morality] have been made sacred? Three factors seem to have played their part in making morality sacred.
The first factor is the social need for protecting the best. The background of this question lies imbedded in what is called the struggle of existence and the survival of the fittest. This arises out of the theory of evolution. It is common knowledge that evolution takes place through a struggle for existence, because the means of food supply in early times were so limited. The struggle is bitter. Nature is said to be red in claw and tooth. In this struggle, which is bitter and bloody, only the fittest survive. Such is the original state of society. In the course of [the] ancient past someone must have raised the question, is the fittest (the strongest) the best? Would not the weakest, if protected, be ultimately the best for advancing the ends and aims of society? The then prevailing state of society seems to have given an answer in the affirmative. Then comes, the question what is the way to protect the weak? Nothing less than to impose some restraints upon the fittest. In this lies the origin and necessity for morality. This morality had to be sacred, because it was imposed originally on the fittest, i.e., the strongest. This has very serious consequences.
First, does morality in becoming social become anti-social? It is not that there is no morality among thieves. There is morality among businessmen. There is morality among fellow caste men and there is also morality among a gang of robbers. But this morality is marked by isolation and exclusiveness. It is a morality to protect "group interest." It is therefore anti-social. It is the isolation and exclusiveness of this kind of morality which throws its anti-social spirit in [to] relief. The same is true where a group observes morality because it has interests of its own to protect. The results of this group organisation of society are far-reaching.
If society continues to consist of anti-social groups, society will remain a disorganised and a factional society. The danger of a disorganised and factional state of society is that it sets up a number of different models and standards. In the absence of common models and common standards, society cannot be a harmonious whole, with such different models and standards, it is impossible for the individual to attain consistency of mind. A society which rests upon the supremacy of one group over another, irrespective of its rational or proportionate claims, inevitably leads to conflict. The only way to put a stop to conflict is to have common rules of morality which are sacred to all.
There is the third factor which requires morality to be made sacred and universal. It is to safeguard the growth of the individual. Under the struggle for existence or under group rule the interests of the individuals are not safe. The group set-up prevents an individual from acquiring consistency of mind, which is possible only when society has common ideals, common models. His thoughts are led astray, and this creates a mind whose seeing unity is forced and distorted. Secondly, the group set-up leads to discrimination and denial of justice. The group set-up leads to stratification of classes. Those who are masters remain masters, and those who are born in slavery remain slaves. Owners remain owners, and workers remain workers. The privileged remain privileged, and the serfs remain serfs. This means that there can be liberty for some, but not for all. This means that there can be equality for a few, but none for the majority. What is the remedy? The only remedy lies in making fraternity universally effective. What is fraternity? It is nothing but another name for [the] brotherhood of men--which is another name for morality. This is why the Buddha preached that Dhamma is morality; and as Dhamma is sacred, so is morality.
The first factor is the social need for protecting the best. The background of this question lies imbedded in what is called the struggle of existence and the survival of the fittest. This arises out of the theory of evolution. It is common knowledge that evolution takes place through a struggle for existence, because the means of food supply in early times were so limited. The struggle is bitter. Nature is said to be red in claw and tooth. In this struggle, which is bitter and bloody, only the fittest survive. Such is the original state of society. In the course of [the] ancient past someone must have raised the question, is the fittest (the strongest) the best? Would not the weakest, if protected, be ultimately the best for advancing the ends and aims of society? The then prevailing state of society seems to have given an answer in the affirmative. Then comes, the question what is the way to protect the weak? Nothing less than to impose some restraints upon the fittest. In this lies the origin and necessity for morality. This morality had to be sacred, because it was imposed originally on the fittest, i.e., the strongest. This has very serious consequences.
First, does morality in becoming social become anti-social? It is not that there is no morality among thieves. There is morality among businessmen. There is morality among fellow caste men and there is also morality among a gang of robbers. But this morality is marked by isolation and exclusiveness. It is a morality to protect "group interest." It is therefore anti-social. It is the isolation and exclusiveness of this kind of morality which throws its anti-social spirit in [to] relief. The same is true where a group observes morality because it has interests of its own to protect. The results of this group organisation of society are far-reaching.
If society continues to consist of anti-social groups, society will remain a disorganised and a factional society. The danger of a disorganised and factional state of society is that it sets up a number of different models and standards. In the absence of common models and common standards, society cannot be a harmonious whole, with such different models and standards, it is impossible for the individual to attain consistency of mind. A society which rests upon the supremacy of one group over another, irrespective of its rational or proportionate claims, inevitably leads to conflict. The only way to put a stop to conflict is to have common rules of morality which are sacred to all.
There is the third factor which requires morality to be made sacred and universal. It is to safeguard the growth of the individual. Under the struggle for existence or under group rule the interests of the individuals are not safe. The group set-up prevents an individual from acquiring consistency of mind, which is possible only when society has common ideals, common models. His thoughts are led astray, and this creates a mind whose seeing unity is forced and distorted. Secondly, the group set-up leads to discrimination and denial of justice. The group set-up leads to stratification of classes. Those who are masters remain masters, and those who are born in slavery remain slaves. Owners remain owners, and workers remain workers. The privileged remain privileged, and the serfs remain serfs. This means that there can be liberty for some, but not for all. This means that there can be equality for a few, but none for the majority. What is the remedy? The only remedy lies in making fraternity universally effective. What is fraternity? It is nothing but another name for [the] brotherhood of men--which is another name for morality. This is why the Buddha preached that Dhamma is morality; and as Dhamma is sacred, so is morality.
— B.R. Ambedkar,
extract from the 'Buddha and His Dhamma', 1957
extract from the 'Buddha and His Dhamma', 1957
No comments:
Post a Comment